Tools for Assessing Potential Significance of Pharmacist Interventions: A Systematic Review

Thi-Ha Vo, Bruno Charpiat, Claire Catoire, Michel Juste, Renaud Roubille, François-Xavier Rose, Sébastien Chanoine, Jean-Luc Bosson, Ornella Conort, Benoît Allenet and Pierrick Bedouch ()
Additional contact information
Thi-Ha Vo: Univ. Grenoble Alpes
Bruno Charpiat: Univ. Grenoble Alpes
Claire Catoire: Univ. Grenoble Alpes
Michel Juste: Centre Hospitalier Auban-Moët, Pharmacie
Renaud Roubille: Centre Hospitalier Lucien Hussel, Pharmacie
François-Xavier Rose: EPSM-Morbihan, Pharmacie
Sébastien Chanoine: Univ. Grenoble Alpes
Jean-Luc Bosson: Univ. Grenoble Alpes
Ornella Conort: Hôpital Cochin, Pharmacie
Benoît Allenet: Univ. Grenoble Alpes
Pierrick Bedouch: Univ. Grenoble Alpes

Drug Safety, 2016, vol. 39, issue 2, No 4, 146 pages

Abstract: Abstract Introduction Assessing the significance of pharmacist interventions (PIs) is essential to demonstrate the added value of pharmacists. Methods and tools for assessing the potential significance of PIs are diverse and their properties are questionable. Objectives We aimed to systematically review the tools available to assess the potential significance of PIs. Methods We conducted a systematic search for English- or French-language publications from 1986 to 2013 in PubMed, PsycINFO, PASCAL, and CINAHL. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers based on inclusion/exclusion criteria and were abstracted for content, structure of tools, and validation process. Results Of 873 citations screened, 82 distinct tools were identified from 133 studies. While clinical aspects were often defined quite clearly, terminology regarding humanistic, economic, and process-related aspects of PIs was omitted, incomplete, or ambiguous in most tools. The probabilities of consequences of PIs/drug-related problems were evaluated in 20/82 tools. Few tools simultaneously measured economic, clinical, humanistic, and process-related variables. Structure of the tools varied from an implicit, mono-dimensional tool to an explicit, multi-dimensional algorithm. Validation processes were diverse in terms of quantification and number of raters, rating method, and psychometric parameters. Of 133 identified studies, there was limited evidence of validity (8/133, 6.0 %), inter-rater reliability (49/133, 36.8 %), and intra-rater reliability (2/133, 1.5 %). Conclusions The majority of tools focused primarily on assessing clinical aspects and failed to detect comprehensive impacts. The heterogeneity of tools and assessment processes hindered our ability to synthesize the results of evaluations. Limited results for their validity and reliability cast doubt on the credibility of this methodology for justification of the value of PIs. Recommendations for development of tools with optimal theoretical, pragmatic, and psychometric properties are proposed.

Date: 2016
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-015-0370-0 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:39:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s40264-015-0370-0

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/adis/journal/40264

DOI: 10.1007/s40264-015-0370-0

Access Statistics for this article

Drug Safety is currently edited by Nitin Joshi

More articles in Drug Safety from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().